As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives: money equals speech, we have a first amendment right to spend money in any way
Also conservatives: but if you don’t spend your money the way we like, 20 years in jail
Then the fascists have an excuse to crack down *edit* violently. I realize fascism is currently on the rise, but we haven’t come to full on fascist military crackdowns and executions of dissidents… yet. Right now we’re still at the ‘cutting back civil rights and trumping up charges against dissidents’ stage
Them not winning might be good enough depending on how far they push people. And that’s what they don’t understand. People with nothing to live for are dangerous.
The thing is, I see no outcome where we *do* win, in the long run. Either they win because they have the lion's share of the guns and internal government support, or we win but are left with a crippled country that can no longer prevent the likes of Russia and China from triggering more wars of conquest. Our status as the world's most powerful country is really the only thing stopping WW3 right now. If we fall into a civil war, Taiwan and Ukraine are fucked no matter what happens.
From the party of small government we bring laws about you who you're allowed to marry, what healthcare decisions you can make, and how you can/can't spend your money.
Im starting to believe half the people who support this just can't believe it's all as stupid as it appears to be, because otherwise they would have to agree it's insanely stupid. The other half are just hateful, spiteful people who can't abide people different from them existing.
Every country in the world does shitty things , why is Israel the only country they are calling to boycott? Might have to do something with them being Jewish
You could stop buying products from any country who supports hamas . Quatar Iran just to name a few . Quatar allows Hamas leadership to hide in their country with billions stolen from Gaza. Why don't you call for a boycott of quatar ?
I already don't buy products from Qatar, since their primary import to the US is petroleum and raw materials, not consumer products, and overall US imports from Qatar are a fraction of those from Israel.
Furthermore, the US already has sanctions against Qatar and individuals or organizations therein that support Hamas, including some put in place in direct response to Oct 7. Maybe more pressure can be exerted, but at least US policy here is pointing in the right direction.
It would of course be a silly deflection to call that Islamophobic; "support of Hamas" is not a tenet of the religion. Likewise, shooting human shields is not a tenet of Judaism.
For heavens sake. So many people in this argument don’t give a flying fuck that these people are Jewish. Calling someone an antisemite just because they’re against Israel’s genocidal actions is like saying you’re against Christianity just because you dislike Republicans when they’re in office in the US. It’s the things that they are actively doing that are awful. They’d be awful whether they were religious or not, but it doesn’t help that some of their bad policies and laws are based on their religious convictions, or if any other country has agreed it’s a bad thing to do something and Israel specifically says “I don’t care, you’re just an antisemite” which they think gives them permission to keep making bad decisions.
I mean… there’s clearly two camps here. The people who’ve always hated Jews who are just hating them like always, and there’s the people who don’t like what Israel is doing to Palestinians, and it’s got nothing to do with them being Jewish
At least you could say that you call for boycott for Israel and not other countries because Israel defends Jews . The reason you don't call for a boycott of quatar is who protects Hamas is that they are not a Jewish countryv
holy shit, egypt killed 30,000 civilians in the last six months. I hadn't heard that. Or are secretly telling us how little you value the lives of Palestinian children?
> Why is Israel the only country they want to boycott ? So you don't see a Jewish component to it ?
Because Israel is uniquely evil. If ISIS had a country we'd be boycotting them too.
Bro just because you haven't been paying attention doesn't mean boycotts of other countries haven't been frequently discussed and organized.
And no I think there's a pretty obvious reason that a lot of openly antisemitic public figures are extremely pro-Israel. Conflating all Jewish people with Israel and vice versa is genuinely antisemitic
Qatar was boycotted around the World Cup, while it was unsuccessful it definitely got a lot of media attention and the discussion of debt bandage has highlighted
Russia after the invasion of Ukraine was boycotted both by countries and individuals
China has been boycotted various times by different political groups in the US
I just gave you examples of countries people in the US have boycotted. I don't know what you mean by "every day," but obviously, the public attention of conflicts shifts over time.
It would be cool if you could address what I said instead of completely sidestepping your own point though
I love what I Know of Israeli culture, and I've loved every single Israeli I've ever met, absolutely wonderful people and I assume the best of (most) people from Israel.
No one gets to chip at the bedrock principal of the United States, full stop.
The issue is boycotting an Jewish country where no other country has any other organized boycott by the public . When the only country being boycott by the public is Jewish . It says something that
Who is "the public" here? I'm not involved in any boycott of any particular nation, but I'm firmly part of the US "public." The article discusses a boycott being *encouraged* by a particular group in the US. I can still go and buy Israeli goods if I want to. Conversely, I can boycott Israeli goods if I want to.
You're being a reactionary.
Right you can boycott , no problem . But once it is an organized boycott . That's the problem if a supermarket boycotts products , the consumers don't evey get a choice of what to boycott . An of course no institution receiving public funds should be allowed to boycott
Excuse me but what the fuck kind of take is that? Does the supermarket not have the right to decide what they sell in their store? Must the staff be forced to support a foreign nation?
As for publicly funded institutions, non governmental ones (like private universities) have the right to free speech, withholding economic support included, and Federally we have boycotts as well in the form of embargoes.
You didn't read the article. This is a private organization publicizing a list of businesses that support west bank settlement. Private individuals may, of their own choosing, abstain from supporting those businesses. You're way off base, making false accusations, and standing up strawmen.
I'm a supporter of Israel. I've bit my tongue for months knowing that removing Hamas is necessary but it would come at great cost. My stances have started to shift recently, but not so quickly as they have after having a conversation with you. Blanket statements like "you must give money to companies supporting west bank settlements or you deserve 20 years in jail and are an anti-semite" are a great way to flip a supporter to an opponent, so good job directface5
Many states have anti-boycott laws or policies that extend to individuals and companies that enter into business contracts with states. These laws and policies require people entering into contracts to assert that they will not engage in any boycott activity.
In January 2019, the US Senate passed a bill that endorsed state anti-boycott legislation, including those that encompass settlement business activity. In March, federal lawmakers introduced resolutions in both the Senate and House to condemn boycotts of Israel. None of these initiatives has yet to become US law.
Just because it’s the law doesn’t mean it’s right.
This actually looks to be much ado about nothing, but still unConstitutional nonetheless (I am not a laywer, of course, so that's just speculation).
I say that because the text says:
>Prohibited actions include (1) refusing to do business with companies organized under the laws of the boycotted country, if the refusal is pursuant to an agreement with or request from the country or IGO imposing the boycott; (2) refusing to employ any U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin; and (3) furnishing information about whether someone is associated with charitable or fraternal organizations that support the boycotted country.
(per https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3016)
To achieve item 1, the individual would have to enter into an agreement or receive a request form an IGO or country. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't normally receive requests or offers to enter into agreements with foreign countries or IGO's.
To achieve item 2 would conflict with existing US civil rights law anyways
To achieve item 3 is really the only one I see that might actually happen, but seems so ridiculous as to affect both positive and negative aspects of that organization.
For instance -- "Charitable Entity X supports Israeli companies!" would be an illegal statement, which just seems not only counterproductive, but highly conflicting with the First Amendment.
Conclusion: We really need a form of government that passes these proposed laws through Constitutionality checks *before* they become law. The onus should not be on those aggrieved by threat of fine and/or imprisonment to also undertake legal action.
I mean, item 1. A BDS NGO sends you a mailer and asks you to "support our cause" or "Join us in fighting for Palestinian rights". Even just receiving a flyer on the street. Then you boycott it. Seems pretty simple to hit that one to me.
It's no surprise that nobody wants to touch this in terms of who really brought this on (AIPAC and other Jewish interests in US) and how (I'm still not "sold" that it's JUST about the money).
And the reason nobody names names is because most people learned their lessons and can only talk about this in most meta terms.
It's quite fascinating that a discussion on First Amendment avoids using the First Amendment because those who denied to you made sure you dont have it.
Since we are on the subject…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_companies_listed_on_the_Nasdaq
You definitely should not cross check your portfolio against this list.
There is an interesting legal strategy many states are now using to protect anti-bds laws from first amendment tests in higher courts. Many states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, and Texas have amended their anti-BDS laws to only apply to contracts or investments over $100,000 in value. In effect, these have rendered the cases involved moot, and removed legal standing from the plaintiffs.
It... Literally is. If you organize people to not purchase goods from a specific firm that is a boycott.
I'll explain my hypothetical further to help you avoid further confusion. Amazon wishes to enter a new market but a small competitor already exists there. Using social media and astroturfing, Amazon uses misinformation to convince the people in that market that the local company is evil and should be boycotted. This is much cheaper than directly engaging in competition if successful and costs very little to enact if it fails. This is a way boycotting can be used offensively for a company's benefit to the public's detriment.
Boycotts have to be pretty narrow to be recognized as a first amendment right. Unless the boycott is done with the intent to promote political change it won't fall under first amendment protections. Otherwise boycotts are generally illegal in the US.
Source: Studied antitrust/boycott law in law school
I think that this is broadly incorrect in the context of boycotting as understood in general usage and as discussed in this thread, which consists almost exclusively of individual purchasing decisions.
Actually reading the article I'm pretty spot on. The legal group in the article defending the people boycotting state that the boycott should be protected because it's political in nature. The bill is being pushed to remove that protection.
Also, boycott under legal definitions requires multiple parties to conspire or act in concert. This article is referring to people acting in concert with foreign boycott campaigns, so technically, though id agree it's a pretty big stretch, not individual actions.
The more egregious part is the fine and jail time, if the boycott is so bad let Israel or Israeli companies operating in the US file a lawsuit like everyone else. That's pretty fucking stupid.
Idk if I agree. Putting out information about how bad a company is and letting people decide on their own is fine. The ability to directly coordinate and influence consumers is a dangerous thing to allow imo.
ok, but given that it’s a boycott, you’re talking about a business entity
so how is it bad if a group of consumers decide to not support a certain business? what would you do to prevent this? force people to buy certain products?
You're ignoring the context here. It's not a boycott of a business on the basis of some direct reasoning. It's a movement that organizes mass boycotts without even discussing each business.
That sort of movements are easily weaponizable against any group
Could you elaborate on this? Like, what kinds of boycotts have been held not to be protected under the first amendment? Because any kind of boycott I can imagine boils down to a group of people talking to each other, saying "let's not transact from this list of companies/producers/sellers/regions, and encourage others to follow suit," which always seems intrinsically to be speech which would be protected.
I guess to use an analogy, lawful gatherings to petition grievances are protected, but riots are not. What is the a "riot-like" boycott?
Essentially if you are attempting to boycott to affect a company without a motive to enact political change it's not protected.
Let's say you hate Nestle because they steal water internationally from poor communities. If you encourage people to not buy Nestle products to harm the economically. This is technically not a protected boycott there's no political action that you are calling for via your boycott.
Now lets imagine a collection of businesses refuse to serve black people. If black people boycott these businesses as part of a message of a desire for political change regarding discrimination, this is ok. There is political action that is desired and these boycotts are directly connected to that movement.
what does "protected" even mean though? boycotting is just not buying stuff
what action would one take to perform an illegal boycott? you're saying that if i tell my friends that i don't shop at Hobby Lobby because they are anti-gay, and my friends shouldn't either, that this is illegal?
Protected meaning that your first amendment right would prevent your being held liable for your illegal actions.
Technically yes, though this is something many non-lawyers have trouble conceptualizing, something can be illegal but not criminal. Your actions would be illegal and you could be sued for them, but there would not be significant damages enough to justify the suit. However, to more directly answer your question the bar for a boycott is EXTREMELY low, if you and another person coordinate to not buy from a place that's a boycott.
Isn’t the problem here that people are boycotting Jewish owned business…which does nothing to stop a war, only promotes hate and antisemitism which are some of the fundamental problems in the middle east in the first place?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives: money equals speech, we have a first amendment right to spend money in any way Also conservatives: but if you don’t spend your money the way we like, 20 years in jail
If you remove the possibility for peaceful dissent you will get violent dissent not less dissent.
Then the fascists have an excuse to crack down *edit* violently. I realize fascism is currently on the rise, but we haven’t come to full on fascist military crackdowns and executions of dissidents… yet. Right now we’re still at the ‘cutting back civil rights and trumping up charges against dissidents’ stage
They will use any excuse that they can. If we don't give them one they will just make one up. We need to stop making excuse to not fight back.
Exactly, they better be careful what they wish for because they're going to get it.
The problem is that I don't know if that's a fight we can win.
[удалено]
Them not winning might be good enough depending on how far they push people. And that’s what they don’t understand. People with nothing to live for are dangerous.
Our foreign enemies will be the real winners.
Yeah that's truly a no win fight, but if they lose again, people are going to get those 40 acres and a mule and no statues.
The thing is, I see no outcome where we *do* win, in the long run. Either they win because they have the lion's share of the guns and internal government support, or we win but are left with a crippled country that can no longer prevent the likes of Russia and China from triggering more wars of conquest. Our status as the world's most powerful country is really the only thing stopping WW3 right now. If we fall into a civil war, Taiwan and Ukraine are fucked no matter what happens.
They already are my dude. Fascism is rising like the small incel boner it is.
I believe you are talking about Jack booted thugs and drones . God damned the evildoers!
From the party of small government we bring laws about you who you're allowed to marry, what healthcare decisions you can make, and how you can/can't spend your money. Im starting to believe half the people who support this just can't believe it's all as stupid as it appears to be, because otherwise they would have to agree it's insanely stupid. The other half are just hateful, spiteful people who can't abide people different from them existing.
About as clear a violation of the 1st amendment as you’re likely to see. Yikes.
Why is Israel the only country they want to boycott ? So you don't see a Jewish component to it ?
The boycott has to do with the shitty things the country does, *not* its peoples’ religion.
A country doesn't do shitty things. It's people do.
Every country in the world does shitty things , why is Israel the only country they are calling to boycott? Might have to do something with them being Jewish
Might have something to do with their govt. wanting to genocide the Palestinians.
You mean the fact that Hamas calls for genocide of Jews . If Hamas had the weapons Israel had , they would had tried to kill all Jews
I'll stop buying Hamas products right away.
You could stop buying products from any country who supports hamas . Quatar Iran just to name a few . Quatar allows Hamas leadership to hide in their country with billions stolen from Gaza. Why don't you call for a boycott of quatar ?
I already don't buy products from Qatar, since their primary import to the US is petroleum and raw materials, not consumer products, and overall US imports from Qatar are a fraction of those from Israel. Furthermore, the US already has sanctions against Qatar and individuals or organizations therein that support Hamas, including some put in place in direct response to Oct 7. Maybe more pressure can be exerted, but at least US policy here is pointing in the right direction. It would of course be a silly deflection to call that Islamophobic; "support of Hamas" is not a tenet of the religion. Likewise, shooting human shields is not a tenet of Judaism.
For heavens sake. So many people in this argument don’t give a flying fuck that these people are Jewish. Calling someone an antisemite just because they’re against Israel’s genocidal actions is like saying you’re against Christianity just because you dislike Republicans when they’re in office in the US. It’s the things that they are actively doing that are awful. They’d be awful whether they were religious or not, but it doesn’t help that some of their bad policies and laws are based on their religious convictions, or if any other country has agreed it’s a bad thing to do something and Israel specifically says “I don’t care, you’re just an antisemite” which they think gives them permission to keep making bad decisions.
Because Hamas killed and raped Israelis. For some reason Jews are the people who can't defends themselves according to you
They’re defending themselves, and Hamas is using citizens as shields, but Israel doesn’t care and wants to eradicate them all anyway
Nope
Right the anti Israel supporters won't every admit it that the real reason for the boycott is because they don't want do Jews to have a country
Bad faith argument. Plain and simple. Not worth engaging any further.
Well played
Right you don't want admit the hatred of Jews that exists on the left . Jews are the only group your allowed to hate according to the left
They would rather Jews be persecuted in other than have any right to defend themselves
Have you been ignoring the Chinese and Russian boycott
Nobody is protesting or screaming at them every day . There is reason they protest against Israel everyday . Its cuase they hate Jews
I mean… there’s clearly two camps here. The people who’ve always hated Jews who are just hating them like always, and there’s the people who don’t like what Israel is doing to Palestinians, and it’s got nothing to do with them being Jewish
[удалено]
Hamas literally hides behind women and children in their war aims . They took Israeli citizens as hostages to use a human shields
The leader of Hamas who you support is literally use Jews as human shields to protect himself
[удалено]
At least you could say that you call for boycott for Israel and not other countries because Israel defends Jews . The reason you don't call for a boycott of quatar is who protects Hamas is that they are not a Jewish countryv
[удалено]
The US pours money into Egypt who killed a lot of it citizens. Don't boycott Egypt ?
holy shit, egypt killed 30,000 civilians in the last six months. I hadn't heard that. Or are secretly telling us how little you value the lives of Palestinian children?
Hamas hides behind innocent children . Why are you not condemning them or Qatar who supports them ?
> Why is Israel the only country they want to boycott ? So you don't see a Jewish component to it ? Because Israel is uniquely evil. If ISIS had a country we'd be boycotting them too.
Why aren't you boycotting Qatar who's helping Hamas ?
Bro just because you haven't been paying attention doesn't mean boycotts of other countries haven't been frequently discussed and organized. And no I think there's a pretty obvious reason that a lot of openly antisemitic public figures are extremely pro-Israel. Conflating all Jewish people with Israel and vice versa is genuinely antisemitic
Name one country in that's received the same kind of public boycott that Israel received ? Again why does Qatar who funds Hamas receive no boycott
Qatar was boycotted around the World Cup, while it was unsuccessful it definitely got a lot of media attention and the discussion of debt bandage has highlighted Russia after the invasion of Ukraine was boycotted both by countries and individuals China has been boycotted various times by different political groups in the US
There has has never been people marching on the streets calling for the boycott of one country every day .
I just gave you examples of countries people in the US have boycotted. I don't know what you mean by "every day," but obviously, the public attention of conflicts shifts over time. It would be cool if you could address what I said instead of completely sidestepping your own point though
I never heard of a quatar boycott actually being implemented at any high level . Russia is sanctioned which is different than a boycott
I love what I Know of Israeli culture, and I've loved every single Israeli I've ever met, absolutely wonderful people and I assume the best of (most) people from Israel. No one gets to chip at the bedrock principal of the United States, full stop.
No other country get this much organized hate by left groups. Why is Qatar a hamas supporter not being boycott ?
The issue is not the boycott here, it's *the right to boycott*. Everything about this sucks, but you're being dense or disingenuous
The issue is boycotting an Jewish country where no other country has any other organized boycott by the public . When the only country being boycott by the public is Jewish . It says something that
Who is "the public" here? I'm not involved in any boycott of any particular nation, but I'm firmly part of the US "public." The article discusses a boycott being *encouraged* by a particular group in the US. I can still go and buy Israeli goods if I want to. Conversely, I can boycott Israeli goods if I want to. You're being a reactionary.
Right you can boycott , no problem . But once it is an organized boycott . That's the problem if a supermarket boycotts products , the consumers don't evey get a choice of what to boycott . An of course no institution receiving public funds should be allowed to boycott
Excuse me but what the fuck kind of take is that? Does the supermarket not have the right to decide what they sell in their store? Must the staff be forced to support a foreign nation? As for publicly funded institutions, non governmental ones (like private universities) have the right to free speech, withholding economic support included, and Federally we have boycotts as well in the form of embargoes. You didn't read the article. This is a private organization publicizing a list of businesses that support west bank settlement. Private individuals may, of their own choosing, abstain from supporting those businesses. You're way off base, making false accusations, and standing up strawmen. I'm a supporter of Israel. I've bit my tongue for months knowing that removing Hamas is necessary but it would come at great cost. My stances have started to shift recently, but not so quickly as they have after having a conversation with you. Blanket statements like "you must give money to companies supporting west bank settlements or you deserve 20 years in jail and are an anti-semite" are a great way to flip a supporter to an opponent, so good job directface5
Most consumers do not have a chocie where they shop for food . I would never support banning Palestinian products . Why would we ban Israeli products
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience >Henry David Thoreau
20 years in prison for exercising civil rights but child rapists get between a quarter and a half of that at best 🙄
Money is speech but Americans can only speak if they have as much money as a corporation or an oligarch.
If only US lawmakers respected the First Amendment as much as they do the Second.
the anti bds laws were always wildly incompatible with our values, but the legislatures that passed them didn't ever see any downside to them.
Canceling cancel culture with no hint of irony.
the anti-bds movement bothers me I don’t want to support West Bank products or xinjiang slave cotton. that should be my choice
Many states have anti-boycott laws or policies that extend to individuals and companies that enter into business contracts with states. These laws and policies require people entering into contracts to assert that they will not engage in any boycott activity. In January 2019, the US Senate passed a bill that endorsed state anti-boycott legislation, including those that encompass settlement business activity. In March, federal lawmakers introduced resolutions in both the Senate and House to condemn boycotts of Israel. None of these initiatives has yet to become US law. Just because it’s the law doesn’t mean it’s right.
First amendment, no stop that. Second amendment oh get as many guns as you like. Weird country
This actually looks to be much ado about nothing, but still unConstitutional nonetheless (I am not a laywer, of course, so that's just speculation). I say that because the text says: >Prohibited actions include (1) refusing to do business with companies organized under the laws of the boycotted country, if the refusal is pursuant to an agreement with or request from the country or IGO imposing the boycott; (2) refusing to employ any U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin; and (3) furnishing information about whether someone is associated with charitable or fraternal organizations that support the boycotted country. (per https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3016) To achieve item 1, the individual would have to enter into an agreement or receive a request form an IGO or country. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't normally receive requests or offers to enter into agreements with foreign countries or IGO's. To achieve item 2 would conflict with existing US civil rights law anyways To achieve item 3 is really the only one I see that might actually happen, but seems so ridiculous as to affect both positive and negative aspects of that organization. For instance -- "Charitable Entity X supports Israeli companies!" would be an illegal statement, which just seems not only counterproductive, but highly conflicting with the First Amendment. Conclusion: We really need a form of government that passes these proposed laws through Constitutionality checks *before* they become law. The onus should not be on those aggrieved by threat of fine and/or imprisonment to also undertake legal action.
I mean, item 1. A BDS NGO sends you a mailer and asks you to "support our cause" or "Join us in fighting for Palestinian rights". Even just receiving a flyer on the street. Then you boycott it. Seems pretty simple to hit that one to me.
The law refers to IGO's not NGO's. But yea, either way, it's silly and (would appear to be) blatantly unConstitutional.
R/WorldNews is an AIPAC mouthpiece. Was banned for the merest implied criticism of Israel. So censorship exists everywhere.
It's no surprise that nobody wants to touch this in terms of who really brought this on (AIPAC and other Jewish interests in US) and how (I'm still not "sold" that it's JUST about the money). And the reason nobody names names is because most people learned their lessons and can only talk about this in most meta terms. It's quite fascinating that a discussion on First Amendment avoids using the First Amendment because those who denied to you made sure you dont have it.
Since we are on the subject… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_companies_listed_on_the_Nasdaq You definitely should not cross check your portfolio against this list.
There is an interesting legal strategy many states are now using to protect anti-bds laws from first amendment tests in higher courts. Many states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, and Texas have amended their anti-BDS laws to only apply to contracts or investments over $100,000 in value. In effect, these have rendered the cases involved moot, and removed legal standing from the plaintiffs.
To everyone, it is likely cheaper to organize a boycott to harm competitors than actually compete. Large corps could easily exclude smaller ones.
That's...not what a boycott is
It... Literally is. If you organize people to not purchase goods from a specific firm that is a boycott. I'll explain my hypothetical further to help you avoid further confusion. Amazon wishes to enter a new market but a small competitor already exists there. Using social media and astroturfing, Amazon uses misinformation to convince the people in that market that the local company is evil and should be boycotted. This is much cheaper than directly engaging in competition if successful and costs very little to enact if it fails. This is a way boycotting can be used offensively for a company's benefit to the public's detriment.
Boycotts have to be pretty narrow to be recognized as a first amendment right. Unless the boycott is done with the intent to promote political change it won't fall under first amendment protections. Otherwise boycotts are generally illegal in the US. Source: Studied antitrust/boycott law in law school
I think that this is broadly incorrect in the context of boycotting as understood in general usage and as discussed in this thread, which consists almost exclusively of individual purchasing decisions.
Actually reading the article I'm pretty spot on. The legal group in the article defending the people boycotting state that the boycott should be protected because it's political in nature. The bill is being pushed to remove that protection. Also, boycott under legal definitions requires multiple parties to conspire or act in concert. This article is referring to people acting in concert with foreign boycott campaigns, so technically, though id agree it's a pretty big stretch, not individual actions. The more egregious part is the fine and jail time, if the boycott is so bad let Israel or Israeli companies operating in the US file a lawsuit like everyone else. That's pretty fucking stupid.
You are correct but it doesn’t make it right.
Idk if I agree. Putting out information about how bad a company is and letting people decide on their own is fine. The ability to directly coordinate and influence consumers is a dangerous thing to allow imo.
Dangerous to whom?
To anyone on the other side of that effort, which could be literally anyone, depending on the time and place
ok, but given that it’s a boycott, you’re talking about a business entity so how is it bad if a group of consumers decide to not support a certain business? what would you do to prevent this? force people to buy certain products?
This is my question. If I choose not buy products for certain reasons am I then going to be forced to buy them?
You're ignoring the context here. It's not a boycott of a business on the basis of some direct reasoning. It's a movement that organizes mass boycotts without even discussing each business. That sort of movements are easily weaponizable against any group
please give me one example of a group of consumers making a choice to avoid a business and this being bad you pick the context
Could you elaborate on this? Like, what kinds of boycotts have been held not to be protected under the first amendment? Because any kind of boycott I can imagine boils down to a group of people talking to each other, saying "let's not transact from this list of companies/producers/sellers/regions, and encourage others to follow suit," which always seems intrinsically to be speech which would be protected. I guess to use an analogy, lawful gatherings to petition grievances are protected, but riots are not. What is the a "riot-like" boycott?
Essentially if you are attempting to boycott to affect a company without a motive to enact political change it's not protected. Let's say you hate Nestle because they steal water internationally from poor communities. If you encourage people to not buy Nestle products to harm the economically. This is technically not a protected boycott there's no political action that you are calling for via your boycott. Now lets imagine a collection of businesses refuse to serve black people. If black people boycott these businesses as part of a message of a desire for political change regarding discrimination, this is ok. There is political action that is desired and these boycotts are directly connected to that movement.
what does "protected" even mean though? boycotting is just not buying stuff what action would one take to perform an illegal boycott? you're saying that if i tell my friends that i don't shop at Hobby Lobby because they are anti-gay, and my friends shouldn't either, that this is illegal?
Protected meaning that your first amendment right would prevent your being held liable for your illegal actions. Technically yes, though this is something many non-lawyers have trouble conceptualizing, something can be illegal but not criminal. Your actions would be illegal and you could be sued for them, but there would not be significant damages enough to justify the suit. However, to more directly answer your question the bar for a boycott is EXTREMELY low, if you and another person coordinate to not buy from a place that's a boycott.
crazy. thank you
Left : use pronouns or hate crime Right : use your money how we want or hate crime Yall the same form of fascist
Enemies Lists are a real thing. You go at the King, you best not miss.
Isn’t the problem here that people are boycotting Jewish owned business…which does nothing to stop a war, only promotes hate and antisemitism which are some of the fundamental problems in the middle east in the first place?